Guys if you are having a problem please report to the tech support forum. The lobby is much improved on previous versions and it is much easier to play than ever before because of the routing server which avoid the need for bypassing your NAT firewalls.

I have to agree with the original poster, although for different reasons. There is a lag, but that is something that can be tweaked and fixed. My problem is that the multiplayer game is largely unplayable due to fatal errors that occur. These have been reported to Matrix/Slitherine (check out the tech forums and you will see). If you only want to play one battle against an opponent, you might be able to get it to work, but if you want to invest the time in playing campaigns (as I do) then you may be in for disappointment. I really do believe that the multiplayer mode was not well tested because we found problems (my friend and I) within the first 30 minutes of playing the game and now the game has no value at all for me until they patch the program. It's a pity because it looks like a lot of hard work went into it, and I hope that the fix is fairly simple but so far, no patch is forthcoming. So, like the OP, I feel that as an early adopter (I bought the game the morning it was available) that I am giving Matrix/Slitherine money that they really haven't fully earned yet.

The bugs that are coming up are not things that are frustrating but can be dealt with while waiting for a patch (like tanks taking a strange path) - these are game stoppers in that they cause the program to completely crash (a variety of internal errors, etc). There is nothing the user can do in this instance, and the game is rendered unusable.

In short, if you want multiplayer, don't buy this game.... yet. Wait until they fix the problems. I hate having to pay to be a beta tester, but I guess this is a lesson for me to learn.

That lobby would be great for CC3. But if you ever seen a MP lobby in any other game, you would never agree on this less-than-basic lobby. No ping, no game info, no chat, no map name, nothing... Please guys patch this game before chistmass!

You can chat in the lobby by hitting Enter at any time. The crash issues are something that wasn't seen in the extensive testing which happened, and we are working to get a fix out as soon as possible.

Iain has given the reasons for the new MP system, and we are going to work on dealing with any issues that you guys are seeing so that everyone can enjoy easy and smooth play. The more information you can give us on specifics the better.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. The problems that people are posting re: multiplayer issues (internal errors, lag time, etc) have come up so soon after launch that I wonder how intensively the entire multiplayer experience was tested. Did people really play a complete campaign game, for example, as beta testers H2H (through the mutiplayer lobby)? And they did not find these problems?

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. The problems that people are posting re: multiplayer issues (internal errors, lag time, etc) have come up so soon after launch that I wonder how intensively the entire multiplayer experience was tested. Did people really play a complete campaign game, for example, as beta testers H2H (through the mutiplayer lobby)? And they did not find these problems?

Mike

Hi Mike

I was a BETA tester and I did not play any online games. There was no specific instructions to do so. I normally play (95%) of my CC as single player so I concentrated on finding errors in the graphics, strat map, supply map coding and the like.

I wish in hindsight we had done more multiplayer testing, obviously.

During testing the programmer was very receptive to changes, fixes, etc so I am confident a patch will be out soon.

Guys, How about some discount on the next CC release for those who bought the game before patch fixing multiplayer comes out? I think even the smallest one will be something to show that you do care for you custmores... Michal

There was a significant multiplayer test, though not all beta testers took part in it. We're trying to work out why some of you have issues that we don't see. E.g. The team were online at the time of release and played a number of games against the community with no issues. Our best guess right now is that the beta team was mostly based on the US and the issues are related to connecting to the server from Europe and the rest of the world. Whatever the cause is we'll find it and get it fixed so please just bear with us. Thanks!

I have a few Matrix/Sliterine games. I see that each has their own multiplayer room. Why not one room where all players can go to meet an opponent that you access through each game. That way there will be more players to meet and arrange games with.

In other words 1 lobby for all Matrx\Slitherine games. More convenient for players, and I should think more efficient for Matrix and Slitherine.

In my case - I am in Ohio and my friend in NY City. Unless your lobby routes us through servers in Europe, then we were in the US.

The problem for us, quite specifically, was in running a campaign. We simply could not get into the second battle without the error. The first battle went fine. So my question stands - how extensively did playtesters actually test multiplayer in Campaign/Operations? Did people actually play an entire campaign/operation?

I have a few Matrix/Sliterine games. I see that each has their own multiplayer room. Why not one room where all players can go to meet an opponent that you access through each game. That way there will be more players to meet and arrange games with.

In other words 1 lobby for all Matrx\Slitherine games. More convenient for players, and I should think more efficient for Matrix and Slitherine.

Because different games have different game setup requirements. You could have a single lobby, but you would spend half your time asking people what game(s) they had or wanted to play. I'm not sure of the utility of a single lobby.

In my case - I am in Ohio and my friend in NY City. Unless your lobby routes us through servers in Europe, then we were in the US.

The problem for us, quite specifically, was in running a campaign. We simply could not get into the second battle without the error. The first battle went fine. So my question stands - how extensively did playtesters actually test multiplayer in Campaign/Operations? Did people actually play an entire campaign/operation?

Does this issue still occur if you make use of the quick fix zip which is posted in the Tech Support forum? This fixes a campaign crash which could well be the same problem you are seeing.

I have a few Matrix/Sliterine games. I see that each has their own multiplayer room. Why not one room where all players can go to meet an opponent that you access through each game. That way there will be more players to meet and arrange games with.

In other words 1 lobby for all Matrx\Slitherine games. More convenient for players, and I should think more efficient for Matrix and Slitherine.

Because different games have different game setup requirements. You could have a single lobby, but you would spend half your time asking people what game(s) they had or wanted to play. I'm not sure of the utility of a single lobby.

Cheers

Pip

Hi Pip,

Check out Battle HQ at the Wargamer. That is the model. Unfortunately in my experience it was not maintained very well.

In GameRanger you can filter the games list to only show the games you have. Even if you only have one version, you can still choose to see who is playing other versions and chat with them. If you can't find a player for the game your hosting, you can host a different version. Your games can be open for anyone to come in and chat.

You can minimize this application and carry on with surfing the web, play other games or doing whatever you do. If someone joins your game, you are notified via taskbar. You are also notified if someone wants to talk to you.

GameRanger also shows you if you can or cannot connect to someone. If the name of your opponent is in italics, you cannot establish a connection.

In some cases you do not have to configure a firewall. Others you do. I never had to change my firewall settings to make any version work.

Having both options available, the Slitherine Lobby and GameRanger would be optimal. To have it work on GameRanger you simply have to leave the old connection methods in there. The admin over there does the rest to make the games connect as he did with all the previous re-releases.

Close Combat will never be popular enough to have only one method to connect for one specific game hosted exclusivley at one site. I know this for a fact, Ièv been trying, through my own website to corrall people online since the MS Zone was put offline. It has to be a collective with all the bells and whistles like GameRanger has as a minimum standard. Settings timings up through forums for online play was a thing of the late 1990`s and early 2000`s. It will not work, end of story.

I am pretty sure that 99% of all people who play CC play vs the AI anyways. Working on the AI and leaving the multiplayer the way it was would of left more people happy.

Prove me wrong that Slitherine Lobby is the way of the future for multiplayer PiTF.

That Game Ranger UI looks fantastic, and looks similar to about every other online game lobby I have ever used. I Don't understand why the TitF lobby interface was designed with such limited information. Surely that data is available - it just needs to be displayed...?

It's unfortunate to read about all the issues players are having with H2H play in Panthers in the Fog. I loved the Close Combat Series from Atomic...haven't played any of the Matrix remakes. However, I really was looking forward to getting back into Close Combat via Panthers in the Fog.

The main reason I loved CC was for the H2H experience; In particular the H2H Campaign game experience. I never got into playing the AI in Close Combat. I was just about to purchase PitF, but figured I should take a quick peak at the forums to see what's being discussed. If H2H is not working in Panthers in the Fog, I think I'll hold onto my cash. I hope this all gets resolved. I Will keep an eye on the forums and hopefully H2H is fixed so that I can justify plunking down the cash on what otherwise looks like a really nice upgrade to Close Combat.

A little bit off-topic, but I'm following Chris Roberts' Star Citizen, and he said regarding to servers, quote: "You don't want to be in that situation when you have your game, and your big publisher suddenly says "oh, not profitable anymore..." Roberts is referring to EA stopping support for online servers: oops, game is gone.

So, Close Combat needs a robust alternative which supports direct connections, like all the previous CC's, because this 2d game is timeless and can/will be played many year from now. Please let it continue to be that way.